Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Article for MUET reading

Thursday October 11, 2012

Women’s rights not there yet

Musings By Marina Mahathir

Malaysian women’s groups have fought hard over the years and won some
battles. But does this mean women are now truly equal to men in the country?
DO we women not matter at all? Are we only valuable around election time? Is
the fact that we can vote the only indicator of our equality?
Women’s groups were in shock last week when – at a National Women’s Day
celebration – the Women, Family and Community Development Minister stated that
Malaysia had no need for a women’s rights movement because we were given
equality from the start.
I understand that the remarks were off-the-cuff but it begs the question of
how unimportant are Malaysian women viewed that they didn’t merit a
carefully-prepared speech.
To say that we are better off than developed countries because we got the
vote from the beginning is to skim the surface of history.
Yes, developed countries did not give the vote to women “from the beginning”.
But they are also older countries, established during eras when archaic
attitudes about women prevailed.
When we gained independence, of course we had to give women the vote because
by then attitudes towards women had changed.
But what is more important is what has happened since then.
Switzerland did not give women the vote until the 1970s. But today they have
had not only a woman president but half of their Cabinet members are women.
We, on the other hand, did not even appoint our first woman minister until a
full 12 years after independence, despite the efforts that women put in during
the independence struggle.
What’s more, we only amended our Federal Constitution to prohibit
gender-based discrimination as late as 2001 – an act that even now is not fully
implemented because a judge ruled that it does not apply to the private sector.
Gender-based violence is also a discrimination issue because it is women who
tend to suffer more.
If we had all our rights in 1957, why then did we need to fight for a
Domestic Violence Act, a law that took six years to be passed by Parliament and
a further two years before it could be gazetted?
Why did we need a Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act) in 1976 if women did
not think their situation was unfair?
Why did we need the Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Act in 1999 so that,
finally, women could be recognised as guardians to their own children?
None of these changes that benefited women happened on their own.
A recent study by two American academics showed that, far more than women
politicians, women’s groups are crucial in pushing for laws that benefit
women.
Similarly, Malaysian women’s groups fought hard to gain these rights. They
wrote memoranda, attended meetings, marched and protested. In the end they won
some of the battles they fought.
Does this mean that we are now completely equal substantively to male
citizens of this country? Of course not!
We are expected to work outside the home, and indeed often have no other
choice, but we are still expected to cook, clean and care. This double burden
can be deeply stressful especially if we have no support.
The Government has called for crèches at workplaces, but they seem to have no
will to enforce that in the private sector.
But we are proud that companies are now being compelled to include women on
their boards.
All well and good but the numbers being trained to do so are nowhere near the
30% government-mandated requirement. So, are we just meant to be tokens?
What is not mentioned is that when we signed up to the Convention for the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, we said we would allocate 30% of
the positions in all decision-making positions to women.
This means more than being on the board; this includes political
positions.
So if we comply, we need to have nine women in the current Cabinet instead of
the two we used to have. What’s more, 30% of all candidates in the coming
elections should be women.
To say that we already have equality is to deny the very many reports on the
status of women in this country that clearly states that we do not.

Article for MUET reading

Wednesday October 17, 2012

Building a more just and caring nation

BRAVE NEW WORLD BY AZMI SHAROM

It is important for us to embrace the ideal that all sectors of society
must be helped if they need help.IT has been said many times in this column that as a nation we need to move
away from race-based politics and policy-making.Whenever the issue is raised, however, there will normally follow responses
that refer to the inequitable distribution of wealth in the country. The usual
argument is that Malays still make up the largest number of poor and thus
require affirmative action.I agree that the largest number of poor households is still largely Malay.
This being the case, if we discard ethnic-based policy-making and focus purely
on poverty alleviation, the largest group that would be receiving help will
still be Malays.The difference with a colour-blind policy, however, will be two-fold.Firstly, as a nation that purports to hold civilised values, it is of vital
importance for us to embrace the ideal that all sectors of society, regardless
of their skin colour, must be helped if they need help.Secondly, it is unsustainable for us to continue to be governed based on race
for there is no way we can grow successfully as a nation if there is a deep and
abiding sense of division among us.As the saying goes, talk is cheap. If one were to take this route, how does
one go about it?Surely the priority should be towards the building of a more equitable
society, in terms of income, education, opportunities for development and
institutional fairness.Fortunately, two NGOs have decided to take the bull by the horns and have
come up with an interesting suggestion.Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) and the National Human Rights Society
(Hakam) have drafted a proposed law called the Social Inclusion Act (SIA).The SIA does not actually provide immediate answers or quick fixes.Instead, it proposes a method through which we can develop policies that will
be beneficial to Malaysians who are disadvantaged and marginalised.What it suggests is the creation of a Social Inclusion Commission. This
commission will consist of seven people who are knowledgeable and experienced in
the issues at hand, i.e. poverty and social marginalisation.The shortlist is to be drawn up by a bipartisan parliamentary committee. The
committee then passes the shortlist to the Prime Minister who then advises the
Yang DiPertuan Agong who finally makes the appointments.In other words, the commissioners will not be appointed on the say-so of one
person.There is also a strict requirement of disclosure in the SIA where
commissioners are bound to disclose any interest they, their family members or
associates might have with any matter which is related to their work.This commission is to be responsible to Parliament to whom they will have to
report regularly. These reports are also to be made available to the public.The commission, once established, has the responsibility to address issues of
poverty reduction, income inequality, institutional discrimination, capacity
building for marginalised and vulnerable communities, and the provision of
social safety nets.They are to then draft policies to deal with these issues and governmental
plans of action are to be made in line with these policies.There is a close link between the commission and Parliament, with the
commission having the responsibility not only to report to the House but to also
take all necessary steps to involve MPs in the development and implementation of
their plans.To me, this proposed law is attractive for many reasons.Firstly and most crucially, it is concerned with the most vulnerable and
needful sectors of the Malaysian community.Secondly, it provides for a transparent modus operandi.Thirdly, its work is closely intertwined with Parliament, thus respecting the
democratic system.And finally, it functions on the premise that concerted research has to be
done in formulating policies.Naturally, there is much work to be done to refine the SIA.However, it is a bold first step forward for the country and it ought to be
taken seriously by anyone who is serious about creating a nation which is more
just, inclusive and caring.

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

About Me

14 years experience teaching English for exams.
Also teach academic English for first and second year university students.
I conduct intensive IELTS and MUET courses, as well as IGCSE for students and university candidates from various public and private universities.
For more information on IELTS and MUET courses, as well as IGCSE, call me (Ms Tang) at 014 639 6212. If you are unable to reach me when you call, its because i'm in class, please leave me a text and i'll get back to you asap.
Many of the students i've taught over the years are now, pursuing their tertiary education in courses and universities of their choice. Many are already working and pursuing their careers as professionals.
These exams don't have to be difficult, MUET, IELTS and IGCSE can be made easy with some work, patience and proper support.
If you want to conduct MUET courses, workshops, seminars at your university or centre, please feel free to give me a call.
The purpose of this blog is to share information about MUET. Many students contact me with many questions about the test. Hopefully it provides a little insight on the test and that you might find it useful in your preparation.

Follow by Email

Copyright

The work on this blog, www.muettuition.blogspot.com belongsto Joline Tang. Please feel free to use the information on the blog for your study purposes. I've made it available to assist MUET candidates. However, if you want to use the information and work on this blog on another blog or print it out for use in class or reproduced in any other form, please link it back to this site and retain any credits, acknowledgements, and hyperlinks within it.